HabboxForum.com is part of Habbo's oldest fansite, Habbox.com. Here at HabboxForum we offer you a chance to meet fellow Habbos, discuss a wide range of topics and best of all participate in a range of events and competitions in which you could win rares and credits on Habbo.com.

Wherever in the world you are, you can take part in this fun by Registering at HabboxForum today! Click here to get involved now or click here for help.

This site uses cookies. Some of the cookies we use are essential for parts of the site to operate and have already been set. We also use Google Analytics and Google Adsense scripts, which all use cookies. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but parts of the site will not work. To find out more about cookies on this website, see our privacy policy. If you continue to browse on this site that means you have agreed to accept cookies from this website.

none of what you posted supports that claim though
most of what you have posted is to do with the poor reasoning for prorouging parliament which has basically been proven to be for brexit (misleading the queen) and has actually been shot down in a court in scotland

- - - Updated - - -

none of what you posted supports that claim though
most of what you have posted is to do with the poor reasoning for prorouging parliament which has basically been proven to be for brexit (misleading the queen) and has actually been shot down in a court in scotland

Maybe you would like to tell us all then why Speaker Bercow has broken multiple conventions to back Remain tactics in the Commons?

Originally Posted by dbgtz

most of what you have posted is to do with the poor reasoning for prorouging parliament which has basically been proven to be for brexit (misleading the queen) and has actually been shot down in a court in scotland

And was within in a court in England. Now it'll go to the Supreme Court.

There is nothing in law that states prorogation cannot be political, as the English court pointed out last week.

He handed the parliamentary timetable over to the opposition and then the opposition was able to pass legislation.

Speaker Bercow himself said that conventions change. But seemingly only when HE decides they should.

how does that show bias to remain when its in labours manifesto to leave
perhaps if the conservatives didnt dump 30 or so of them because they acted against the whip (something many in government did themselves) theyd still be in a position to pass legislation

The British constitution though remember is a continuation of the Kingdom of England's constitution.

how does that show bias to remain when its in labours manifesto to leave
perhaps if the conservatives didnt dump 30 or so of them because they acted against the whip (something many in government did themselves) theyd still be in a position to pass legislation

Labour's manifesto says to Leave, yet its MPs do the opposite.

And the Tories lost their majority when Philip Lee MP defected just before the 21 were expelled.

Here's the problem below in a simple graph -

Originally Posted by dbgtz

but that doesnt mean laws specific to england/wales take precedence over scottish laws in scotland (as far as im aware)
if its illegal in one it would be illegal in both (again, as far as im aware)

i dont know why youre linking that second thing given thats nothing to do with this

British law takes precedence over Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish law. But my point is that given the constitution is based on Common law and not Scots law, it is likely that the Supreme Court will take the same view as the English courts did. We don't govern via the courts.

Originally Posted by dbgtz

hes literally arguing for parliamentary sovereignty

That's the problem - it isn't his job to 'argue' for anything other than act as a neutral Speaker for all sides of the House of Commons.